Morality standpoints of pornography

[Muffin™]

What are your thoughts on porn? I think it's alright, as long as animals/children aren't involved.

 

[Nick]

Changed the thread name to better suit appropriate discussion. Discuss the moral standpoints on pornography rather than the explicit details of it.

 

[Kura]

I find this to be an interesting topic when you think about it in deeper means. Kinda like.. well what is it that attracts people to watching sexual relations with others? And how does an avid porn watcher really differentiate themselves from Voyeurism (which is technically a mental disorder) or how much watching would merit an addiction.
For those who don't know, voyeurism is a disorder where people get sexual gratification from seeing a naked body or sexual acts. This, though, becomes criminal when the offender begins to act more like a "peeping tom" than a porn watcher.. but they are closely connected in a way.

I also find it to be interesting on a moral standpoint. Some people find porn outright wrong or disgusting, and others find it to be a very natural thing. I find this interesting in the fact that it probably relates to how people regard the sexual act OR if they're mature enough to really understand different meanings of sexual love. For example, perhaps one person thinks watching porn is wrong because they believe it's an intimate moment shared with two people- and to them, sex is a private affair- which therefore makes them uncomfortable watching. With other people, they might be very open to the affair and find it easy to discuss it with others. I guess all people treat it differently, but usually it SHOULD be treated in a mature manner to everyone because people can be very touchy over the subject, and they should be respectful.

That's basically my thoughts on pornography. I don't think it's necessarily wrong.. but when it starts to become an addiction, then that's a bad thing. Animals and children is a whole other matter, though, and is, of course, illegal in most countries.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I don't find pornography to be immoral. I know some people do find it immoral, but I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they wish in the privacy of their own homes along as all parties viewing such material are consenting and of legal age. I don't even find animated CP or adults acting as children to be wrong or immoral, since no actual children are being exploited through it.

 

[otaku-dono]

I never did understand why the legal sex age was 16 but the age for porn was 18...

I don't think it's immoral; as long as there are people doing something someone else is going to want to watch, so it's just a particular taste really. Except stuff like child porn is wrong.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I don't think there's anything really wrong with porn. Most people who think it's morally wrong think so because it's apparently degrading to women, but while that may be true in some cases, women are usually the "star of the show" and in the driving seat as it were.
As long as it's between two consenting adults it's fine in my opinion.

I never did understand why the legal sex age was 16 but the age for porn was 18...

Yeah, I never got that either. I think it was Jimmy Carr who did a joke about that, something along the lines of "Okay, when you're 16 you can have sex, but you aren't allowed to watch it for another 2 years, so make sure not to look down". I think they should be both at 16 in my opinion. Mind you, most people start watching when they are only 14 or so anyway, so that renders my point kinda moot.

 

[Jolene]

I think it is morally bad because it funds organized crime. Lots of women are forced into being in pornography by criminals.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I think it is morally bad because it funds organized crime. Lots of women are forced into being in pornography by criminals.

I think you may have got pornography confused with prostitution there :\

 

[FreakyLocz14]

In my state the legal age of sexual consent is 18. Although this law is rarely enforced, a two minors having consensual sex can be prosecuted for statutory rape against each other.

 

[Jolene]

I think you may have got pornography confused with prostitution there :\

You are wrong organized crime is also involved in pornography.

 

[Zeffy]

You are wrong organized crime is also involved in pornography.

And you do know that porn is legal in some countries, one of them being the United States.

And porn isn't immoral, as long as those involved accepts what they do.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I find porn to be a form of art as any other sort of imagery intended to invoke certain emotions. I personally don't like porn, but it's the same reason why some people don't like art with people with animal faces - it's just not my thing.

I don't really approve of child porn because of the fact that the child is a) not asked for consent and b) could be psychologically hurt by this lack of consent when they find out about it later.

I think it is morally bad because it funds organized crime. Lots of women are forced into being in pornography by criminals.

You are wrong organized crime is also involved in pornography.

You sure you're not thinking "prostitution" instead of "pornography"? People who do pornography usually choose to do it, prostitution no.

 

[Cruelty And The Beast]

If women want to 'degrade themselves' then why stop them? Some female porn stars make a great deal of money and still hold down relatively normal relationships, if they do this voluntarily then good for them! Who are we to condemn their actions? After all, when an industry is producing something it is producing it in the expectation that people deem it useful or desirable. So, if you think that Pornography is wrong you need to take a look at why it is being made and that "blame" is laid on almost everyone in a society which has a definite sexual focus.

@Jolene

Sure, some people are coerced into doing pornography, but this is a different issue. Pornography itself isn't wrong because some people in the industry are engaged in coercive activities, I fully agree that these people should be prevented from acting in this way, but this is about the people involved, not the act or the product. Suppose, for example, a clothes manufacturer. It is quite reasonable to presume it possible that there have been and are clothing manufacturers who are engaged in coercive activities, violating the rights of workers, intimidating competitors or bribing the authorities to gain an advantage. The blame must be laid upon those people who are engaged in these acitivities, not the clothing industry which is a perfect;y acceptable one.

 

[.Gamer]

It's all voluntary so I don't see what the problem with it is.

 

[Captain Fabio]

For the people who choose to do that as a career, then fair enough.

I have no problem with pornography.

 

[Zeta Sukuna]

I think that porn isn't immoral, due to the fact that it is natural. Porn has existed for a LONG time. Drawings, sculptures, and it eventually mutated into the movies of today. I don't find any kind of porn immoral, so long as it's consensual, which most porn is. There are a few cases here and there that aren't, but for the most part, it is.

Pornography makes a HELL of a lot of money, too. They're not going to stop it. And about organized crime making pornography... you'd be right if this was the 70s, but it's not. Porn is controlled nowadays, by the same type of people that produce goods. Big Businesses. Oh yeah, there are people who film themselves for fun, and maybe some criminals film it, but a LOT of it nowadays is produced by big businesses. The majority, I don't know by how much, though.

 

[Pokeyomom]

I think that porn isn't immoral, due to the fact that it is natural. Porn has existed for a LONG time. Drawings, sculptures, and it eventually mutated into the movies of today.

Drawings of slight busted women are far from being equivalent to porn flicks about mothers and sons, nasty ho'$, cheating wives, etc. Go look up any free porn site, and you will be hard pressed to find any depiction of sexuality that isn't perverse to some degree.

I still agree that porn should be legal, but a lot of it is very seedy. It seems like people are never quite satisfied with sexuality. Perhaps sexuality evolves, and all the weird/kinky flicks out there are just the latest manifestation of a "progression". I just think the slippery slope principle is applicaple to porn; it's okay to a point, but when do we draw the line as a society?

Now I can't cite peer reviewed literature, but many psychologists and social scientists will attest to how damaging porno can be to a psyche. It seems feasible that it could warp your sexual palate.

It would be easy enough to say something like "well cigarettes can be damaging too, but they should be legal because blah blah blah", and maybe this is right. I just feel like some forms of porno are way overboard, even when they are consensual, between adults, etc. I'm sure all kinds of moral zeal could be rallied here, such as porno is desanctifying sexuality, etc, but it's tough to quantify the real world effects of porno. What a loaded subject!:nervous:

In summary: I believe goverments should take stringent measures to curtail certain types of porn. I know they already do for child pornography, and beastiality, but perhaps it needs to be taken a step further?

 

[Zeta Sukuna]

Drawings of slight busted women are far from being equivalent to porn flicks about mothers and sons, nasty ho'$, cheating wives, etc. Go look up any free porn site, and you will be hard pressed to find any depiction of sexuality that isn't perverse to some degree.

One extreme to another, no? Guess what? It still isn't hardly any different. There have likely been drawings such as that even before. I never said it was equivalent to today's stuff, I stated that it mutated into today's stuff. That spiel was just me saying that it existed for a long time in one form or another. Yes, it could have been tamer, but it still existed.

I still agree that porn should be legal, but a lot of it is very seedy. It seems like people are never quite satisfied with sexuality. Perhaps sexuality evolves, and all the weird/kinky flicks out there are just the latest manifestation of a "progression". I just think the slippery slope principle is applicaple to porn; it's okay to a point, but when do we draw the line as a society?

Sexuality is natural, they shouldn't be satisfied, since it is what we were programmed to do. As males, we were programmed to have sex with a lot of women, in order to produce offspring. And females were programmed to keep males with them to protect them. They did this by offering sex. If people were satisfied, then they wouldn't have any desire to HAVE sex, which, unless you have a kid, is bad in terms of spreading your genes.

But there is likely a chance I misunderstood this part.

Now I can't cite peer reviewed literature, but many psychologists and social scientists will attest to how damaging porno can be to a psyche. It seems feasible that it could warp your sexual palate.

Porn can damage psyches, if you're not ready for it. But so can scary movies, and games. Anything, really, can damage a psyche, which is why we have so many phobias.

It would be easy enough to say something like "well cigarettes can be damaging too, but they should be legal because blah blah blah", and maybe this is right. I just feel like some forms of porno are way overboard, even when they are consensual, between adults, etc. I'm sure all kinds of moral zeal could be rallied here, such as porno is desanctifying sexuality, etc, but it's tough to quantify the real world effects of porno. What a loaded subject!

Didn't copy paste the smiley since I despise those smilies. Anyway, there are people who would argue against that, like I am. Porn that is overboard, is only overboard because you were raised to believe as such. Fetishes are things that arouse you, whether a man or a woman has one, they happen during sexual development. You have fetishes, I have fetishes, and chances are that they vary. This hard core stuff has an audience, it isn't hurting anyone and it makes the stars and the company money. I don't see what's wrong with it.

In summary: I believe goverments should take stringent measures to curtail certain types of porn. I know they already do for child pornography, and beastiality, but perhaps it needs to be taken a step further?

I personally believe it should remain as is. Basically this summation makes you sound like you want to ban porn that isn't straight up sex. Does it matter, so long as no one is really hurt?

 

[Esper]

Pornography itself isn't wrong because some people in the industry are engaged in coercive activities, I fully agree that these people should be prevented from acting in this way, but this is about the people involved, not the act or the product.

One could argue that if pornography is likely, or has an established track record of coercing people then it is, by its nature, wrong. I have no knowledge indicating that it is or isn't; I'm merely pointing this out to illustrate a point about reinforcing stereotypes.

Where pornography can be argued to be morally unjust is in its depictions of women (also men, but let's not get into that just yet) in degrading and/or submissive positions (both social/psychological positions and more visibly obvious ones). Porn can reinforce the idea that women are objects - sexual objects - depending on what kind of porn it is. Gay porn probably doesn't run this risk and perhaps not all porn is made to depict an active/dominant male and a passive/submissive female, but certainly some does. I'm not really certain that it's a common enough depiction to constitute a pattern, but if it is then one could justifiably say that porn does degrade and harm women.

And how does an avid porn watcher really differentiate themselves from Voyeurism (which is technically a mental disorder) or how much watching would merit an addiction.
For those who don't know, voyeurism is a disorder where people get sexual gratification from seeing a naked body or sexual acts. This, though, becomes criminal when the offender begins to act more like a "peeping tom" than a porn watcher.. but they are closely connected in a way.

Isn't the important difference that in watching porn you're watching a performer who knows they will be watched and has presumably given their permission for you to do so while with voyeurism you are infringing on someone's privacy?

 

[beauty. proletariat]

I feel that things can only be immoral if someone is having to do something without their consent or if they are being taken advantage of.

Under this umbrella if you will, pornography and morality is a subject that does not need to be discussed.

I'm talking about professional pornography, not homemade ones as they are often posted without consent.